SPaCE Swab: Point-of-Care Sensor for Simple and Rapid Detection of Acute Wound Infection.

Wound infection is commonly observed after surgery and trauma but is difficult to diagnose and poorly defined in terms of objective clinical parameters. The assumption that bacteria in a wound correlate with infection is false; all wounds contain microorganisms, but not all wounds are clinically infected. This makes it difficult for clinicians to determine true wound infection, especially in wounds with pathogenic biofilms. If an infection is not properly treated, pathogenic virulence factors, such as rhamnolipids from Pseudomonas aeruginosa, can modulate the host immune response and cause tissue breakdown. Life-threatening sepsis can result if the organisms penetrate deep into host tissue. This communication describes the sensor development for five important clinical microbial pathogens commonly found in wounds: Staphylococcus aureus, P. aeruginosa, Candida albicans/auris, and Enterococcus faecalis (the SPaCE pathogens). The sensor contains liposomes encapsulating a self-quenched fluorescent dye. Toxins, expressed by SPaCE infecting pathogens in early-stage infected wounds, break down the liposomes, triggering dye release, thus changing the sensor color from yellow to green, an indication of infection. Five clinical species of bacteria and fungi, up to 20 strains each (totaling 83), were grown as early-stage biofilms in ex vivo porcine burn wounds. The biofilms were then swabbed, and the swab placed in the liposome suspension. The population density of selected pathogens in a porcine wound biofilm was quantified and correlated with colorimetric response. Over 88% of swabs switched the sensor on (107-108 CFU/swab). A pilot clinical study demonstrated a good correlation between sensor switch-on and early-stage wound infection.

A 5-year single-centre retrospective study of potential drug interactions in burns inpatients with psychiatric comorbidities.

INTRODUCTION: Burns patients with psychiatric comorbidities may be at increased risk of harm from drug interactions. We aimed to identify the most common classes of drug involved, the potential clinical effects and any clinical evidence for their occurrence. METHODS: The International Burn Injury Database was used to identify all admission episodes for patients with a psychiatric comorbidity over a 5-year period at an adult regional burns unit. For this group, all drugs administered were categorised as either a new or continuing medication. Following this, an established online tool was used to screen for potential interactions between drugs. Where one was identified, a retrospective notes review was used to investigate whether it had occurred clinically. RESULTS: Ninety-one admission episodes were identified and records were available for 60 of these. In total, 145 incidences of severe potential interactions were identified (89 between a new drug and a continuing drug and 56 between two new drugs). The most frequently involved continuing drugs with the potential for interaction were neurotransmitter reuptake-inhibiting antidepressants and mirtazapine, while the most common new drugs identified were ondansetron, fentanyl and tramadol. The most frequently identified potential consequence of interactions were serotonin syndrome, arrhythmias and hypokalaemia. Clinically, there was minimal evidence for any interaction. CONCLUSION: We have found many potential severe interactions in this patient group and psychotropic drugs were more commonly implicated than other drug classes. However, there was little evidence of the clinical manifestations of interaction. Serious drug interactions in burns patients are likely rare, but clinicians should be aware of the most likely drugs involved and the possible sequelae.

The SILKIE (Skin graftIng Low friKtIon Environment) study: a non-randomised proof-of-concept and feasibility study on the impact of low-friction nursing environment on skin grafting success rates in adult and paediatric burns.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of low-friction (LF) bedding on graft loss in an acute burn care setting, and to examine the feasibility and costs of using LF bedding compared with standard care. DESIGN: Proof of concept before and after study with feasibility of delivering the intervention. SETTING: Three burns services within two UK hospital trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria were patients older than 4 weeks, who received a skin graft after burn injury and were admitted overnight. The comparator cohort were eligible patients admitted in a 12-month period before the intervention. INTERVENTION: Introduction of LF sheets and pillowcases during a 15-month period. OUTCOME MEASURES: For proof of concept, the LF and comparator cohorts were compared in terms of number of regrafting operations (primary), percentage graft loss, hospital length of stay (LoS) and LoS cost (secondary). Feasibility outcomes were practicality and safety of using LF bedding. RESULTS: 131 patients were eligible for the LF cohort and 90 patients for the comparator cohort. Although the primary outcome of the proportion needing regrafting was halved in the LF cohort, the confidence interval (CI) crossed 1 (OR (95% CI): 0.56 (0.16 to 1.88)). Partial graft loss (any loss) was significantly reduced in the LF cohort (OR (95% CI): 0.27 (0.14, 0.51)). Inpatient LoS was no different between the two cohorts (difference in median days (95% CI): 0 (-2 to 1)), and the estimated difference in LoS cost was £-1139 (-4829 to 2551). Practical issues were easily resolved, and no safety incidents occurred while patients were nursed on LF bedding. CONCLUSIONS: LF bedding is safe to use in burned patients with skin grafts and we have shown proof of concept for the intervention. Further economic modelling is required to see if an appropriately powered randomised control trial would be worthwhile or if roll out across the National Health Service is justified. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN82599687.